I’m just a little worried because she looks like Bob Novak.

But I know that’s very shallow of me.

Um, dude, seriously?
You are like my favorite blogger ever but this post is just DUMB.
The whole point of those objecting to Kagan is that “Have a little faith” is a lame, lame, lame reason to entrust someone with a place on the Supreme Court for the next forty years. Obama has consistently lied to and disappointed the left. I think that the last thing most Democrats thought when voting for Obama was that he would move the Supreme Court to the right. Of all things.

…and Kagan moves the court to the right…how?

Ok, but still I am not sure what her motivation was with the school thing and ROTC. I mean the military doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals, they serve they just can’t talk about their gayness, which is a behavior. Sexual appropriateness and illegal are two different things. One can be inappropriate and legal as well as appropriate and illegal depending. An officer can’t be kissing his grunt wife so whatever.

However, I don’t want to automatically be against Obama like my counterparts are. I really want to be objective.But here’s the catch, she has no record no history on which to base things. I mean, I like how Obama is sticking with the constitutional requirements but what if she stinks and becomes an activist, maybe we need term limits check the story out

http://bit.ly/aBOewJ

She replaces JP Stevens, who has been the stellar opponent of Bush/Cheney/Obama executive overreach, including indefinite detention, which Kagan specifically favors.

To list one example.

I’ve had enough of faith-based governance during the Bush-worship years. Show me the money, please, or at least leave it on the dresser.

From MediaMatters via WaMo.

I am not against discussion and debate about her as a candidate, but come on. She’s not a conservative.

P.S. She gave the exact same answer as Dawn Johnson about infinite detainment. She said that under the current law, it was legal. She did not say that she supported it.

Thank you for this post, sir. The undie-bundlers need to get their shorts out of their chute. Then they should re-read your post and keep re-reading until it sinks in.

In response to tbogg:

How would she move the court to the right – come on, tbogg, you read Glenn Greenwald too. The objection is that there are dozens if not hundreds of well-regarded liberal judges with clear and long paper trails supporting the issues that the people who supported Obama care about and thought that he cared about too. If we hadn’t been proven wrong time and time and time again – on civil liberties, on the wars, on gay rights, on Wall Street, on torture – the “keep the faith” argument might be more convincing. But with Kagan we just don’t know. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if he had chosen someone with a clear record.

Look, nobody is more brilliant than you at mocking the idiot right wing. But I think you then also have an obligation not to be a blind “have a little faith” partisan when it comes to Obama. He’s lied about so much stuff already that you just come off sounding incredibly naive telling us to “Have a little faith.”

Pick your battles wisely and, seriously: chill the fuck out. (Again)

Once again, from you little corner of the empire to Jane’s ear.

Obama’s a big boy. He can handle criticism from people who voted for him, one would think. And just like with HCR, his first move has been to give up too much leverage before his nomination was even out of the gate.

So please, it isn’t irrational hippy-hate to criticize The One when he continues to make tactical and strategic blunders. In fact, it’s a hell of a lot more rational than the “Have a little faith” argument.

Obama has consistently been way to the right of center (today’s center, no less) on nearly every legal question put to him. If he can’t protect Bush hires by keeping them on the job, he at least refuses to investigate them even when they admit they broke the law (e.g. Cheney). He let Dawn Johnson swing in the wind until she cut herself down and walked out. And now, when he proposes someone for SCOTUS who has a shorter list of legal opinions than I have peer-reviewed papers on string theory, you say, “Have a little faith.” No problem. That’s exactly what I have. And in return for your advice I have some for you – don’t drop the soap.

Thank you.

Cenk Uygur has a clear take on this.

And to take his football metaphor a bit further – liberals are mad because they thought the 2008 elections meant they’d got Jesus Christ in the draft.

But it turns the new recruit is more like Tim Tebow.

I get where you’re coming from, but IMO any SCOTUS nominee is a very big deal, all the more so given Congress’ dysfunction. Kagan could be on the court for 30 years, not merely an election cycle or two, so the dynamics are different from those of gradual progress or messy health care compromises. Stevens wrote some great opinions and became a major force – and the sad thing is, he was a moderate conservative who was later labeled “liberal,” or even the most liberal member of the court. That’s sorta the problem with American politics of the past 30-40 years in a nutshell. Ginsberg and Breyer, although decent, were consensus candidates pre-approved by Orrin Hatch. One radical conservative on the court wouldn’t be so bad, and could even have some value, but we have four, and they’re a powerful, political bloc. There’s not much margin for error. As Greenwald’s pointed out, the Republicans nominate rabid, radical ideologues and the Democrats generally nominate middle-of-the-road conciliators. While I don’t think Kagan will devour babies alive, or invite Scalia to torture parties, from what I’ve read so far, she’s not the strongest candidate. She’s also seemed willing to defend executive power grabs and state secrets. We currently have supposedly sober adults running around proposing we further strip due process, and proclaiming the dangerous lie that torture “works” because they saw it on 24 and Dick Cheney says so. I’m sympathetic to Obama for the the multiple messes he inherited, but the rule of law on the SCOTUS level is one of those lines in the sand. We simply can’t afford any more people who go for the authoritarian line on due process, executive power, torture investigations, etc. At the very least, it’s fair to ask where Kagan stands. Hamdan and other decisions should not have been as close as they were, and some other recent major decisions have been very bad, decided by slim majorities and driven by radical ideologues. If Kagan can work some mojo on conservatives, great, but I’m concerned and skeptical, and want to at least hear where she stands on important issues first.

Thanks, Tbogg. Those who think Obama could grease a Bernie Sanders or Glenn Greenwalt nomination through without evenutally having to withdraw it, and that it would actually do anything to change 5 to 4 votes, will disagree. Increasingly, they stay over in corner pissing and moaning and awaiting the return of Bonnie Prince Kucinich or throwing e-Molitov cocktails.

aaahhhh…sanity. Thank you.

There is that. You have to trust Obama and I don’t anymore. And nothing he’s done since his oath of office has inspired me to hope.

It’s an uninspiring choice on top of so many other uninspiring choices.

A lot of potential Democratic voters will be chilling the fuck out this November.

This was a really dumb post. The major objection to Kagan was that she has really no track record to speak of, has no experience in US courts (maybe you should read this piece by bmaz on a site called, i don’t know, something like firesomething, and then address the issue substantively rather than focus on whatever flaming occurs somewhere).

The real problem, of course, is that we DFHs have no reason to trust Obama’s instincts – or rather, we do trust his instincts to bargain for a glass one-quarter full. At best.

Geez, it’s like we live in the memory hole. I’m a lefty pinko from way back. Obama isn’t. His SCOTUS nominee can be anybody he wants, but it’s not going to be Ms. Libby Leftosky for sure. Not because republicans would filibuster the nominee, but because his own fucking party would oppose her, and he’d have to withdraw the nomination. Did we not just live through the health care reform debacle? I don’t remember any liberal Democratic majority fighting for universal health care, hell, Democrats didn’t even fight for a weak-tea public option. If we want a Leftosky to be nominated, then we’re going to have to get a liberal Congress elected, and that ain’t happening in this lifetime.

I don’t know any more about Kagan than I read in the papers. And neither do her knee-jerk opponents, which might be one reason she’s being put forward, but I haven’t a clue and nobody else does either. The right-wing never got over David Souter, so the country now must endure Roberts and Alito. But we also got a Sotomayor, and while Stevens is not nearly the liberal he’s painted as — partially a result of how radical the right-wing majority of the court is — he moderated his conservative views on the job. So who knows.

So glad that there are other people in here calling bullshit.

RP, Sotomayor had tried and true liberal credentials and got in fairly easily. WTF are you talking about? Why not nominate a lefty first and if she gets rejected, then go with the mystery box?

I do not believe the man who enabled his beloved wife to fly across the country in the middle of a blizzard to snatch up Teh Puppy of Her Dreams could ever be unpleasant. Not ever.

Well, that makes excellent sense: stay home and let the conservatives win elections. That will show Obama, eh?

I live in Dick Armey country, where Republicans get 70-80% of the vote. To those whose votes actually matter and would stay home in a tantrum, grow the fuck up and get some perspective.

Uh ohhh. Looks like our Mr. Tbogg had a few single malts while the family sat around the fire, and – heavens! – disagreed. Very unpleasant. Guess you will have to change your handle to Tbomobot now. Tee hee.

Looks like it may be off to the FEMA camp for you. It’s not bad here. I’m thinking about starting a softball team.

I myself, much like you am completely willing to trust the Dear Learder in everything he does. God knows that he has never shown himself to have anything but the average person’s best interest at heart. If one defines the average person as an incredibly wealthy insider who loves them some executive power (and money, did I say money?).

After Bush, very few people have any faith left. Everybody wants the big O to succeed but people like Glenzilla present very detailed, logical arguments that this administration is far from perfect. I’m desperately trying to keep the faith but if you want to keep any optimism about O don’t go to Chris Floyd’s joint.
I would have preferred someone like the lefty that Glenn was promoting but there you go. Also.

You never know until you fight the fight. Sometimes you lose, but at least you’ve fought for something other then more power to the powerful. I have read again and again that Obama couldn’t have won a fight for this or that so he cleverly choses not to fight that fight. That’s not cleverness that’s cowardice.

“Where’s my unicorn?” right?
Trust me, Feingold would be just as disappointing as Obama if he were President. The problem is that the President is an executive, and for many on the left executive functions are simply not okay. Of course they don’t realize this, because if they’d examined their prejudices on the matter they’d probably have discarded them right away, good people that they are.

Also, GOOGLE LYNDON LAROUCHE

Watch that talk, Tbogg. You want the moderator on your ass?

Sotomayor had tried and true liberal credentials

In what universe? She was, and who knows maybe still is, moderately liberal at best. And prior to her nomination and even still, everything known about her views on executive power — one of the current bugaboos — would fit on the head of a pin.

Why not nominate a lefty first and if she gets rejected, then go with the mystery box?

Hey. I’d love to see Justice Bernie Sanders. Na ga happen. And since when is Obama a lefty? Why would he risk any political capital nominating someone clearly leftist? As far as anyone can tell, Elena Kagan is as much a moderate liberal as our President. Of course, how she will vote is anyone’s guess.

I don’t buy the “trust him” advice, but it’s not like we have much choice at this point. Like conservatives did with Miers, liberals are free to criticize Kagan until the cows come home, but I doubt if Democrats are about to cater to their left wing and reject her — which would only undermine Obama’s power even more.

I’m just sick of Obama always starting at the “Oh, we have to compromise on our choices so thoroughly that they right looks bad!” AT THE START OF ALL OF THIS, rather than potentially doing that AT THE END.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE WORTH FUCKING FIGHTING FOR.

I think the problem is that there is an extremely well qualified, and strongly progressive candidate in Woods. Kagan in contrast is something of an unknown (very little record to judge by), but some indications that she is somewhat to the right of Stevens and none that she is to the left. It becomes another example of Obama making a “safe” choice, which moves things to the right.

What strikes me as odd about these discussions is the assumption that what we say on blogs will matter one way or the other, in the sense that it’s terribly terribly important to either support this choice or oppose it.

The falsity of the notion that whatever the left-wing blogosphere does has the slightest effect on what Barack Obama or Rahm Emnanuel decide to do is easily demonstrated by the fact that they just chose Kagan.

I’m sort of disappointed and angry at some of Obama’s choices, pandering to the “drill baby drill” crowd may be the best recent example just in terms of the embarrassingly bad timing award winner that it turned out to be, but there are others as well.

On the other hand this would never in a million years make me want to vote for someone like John McCain, or some Nader who would help a Republican win. I also don’t think that there’s enough support for anyone like Feingold to even mount a replay of Nader, though I suppose I could be wrong.

My point here is that I fail to see why doing what Greenwald does, criticizing the President as best you can, has to be seen as undermining Democrats somehow. Far from it, if you ask me. No one really listens to the hippies anyway, but at least we can try, if you scream loud enough your voice might just be the one that makes it escape the gravity of Whoville and gets it heard. Not enough to actually elect someone, but enough to exert a tiny gravitational pull. Tiny.

The conceit that our griping is a large and dangerous thing is simply wishful thinking.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Greenwald. He laid out his case very clearly. I found it convincing. I would have chosen Woods over Kagan if the constitution had designated me to make the choice. I also agree with Mr. Greenwald that the time to make that argument was BEFORE an official nomination.

I hope that the confirmation process will be rigorous even though history shows that that is rarely the case. The republicans aren’t interested in doing anything but scoring short-term political points and will settle for some “wise Latina” type bullshit. Too many dems will care only about making sure that she is confirmed so that the administration has another win. Despite all of that, I’ll wait and see what comes out of the confirmation hearings. I will not base my opinion on faith in Obama or faith in Greenwald.

That being said, I doubt that Kagan is really the anti-christ. I also doubt that there is a conspiracy between Obama, Kagan and Tbogg to foist a stealth candidate on us because they secretly want someone to the far right of Scalia. To me, FDL has gone insane. I was nailed to the wall by several commenters for making the statement that I preferred Obama/Biden to McCain/Palin. This it seems is an opinion beyond the pale here these days. So I usually limit my comments to my random ten on Hump the Jukebox.

I guess what I do not get is all the folks who act like Obama has betrayed them by not being Libby McLiberal. I thought it was pretty clear in the campaign that he was running as a pragmatic centrist; where anyone got the “most liberal Democratic nominee EVAR!!” tag, other than Fox News which you should know better than to trust, is anyone’s guess. I also don’t get the “sold down the river” by Obama “breaking his promises” narrative. From where I stand, Obama has hewed more closely to his campaign promises than pretty much any other president of the past 30 years or so. Certainly more closely than Bill Clinton did; Clinton’s MO was to make the big promise, and as soon as there was any opposition to it, to abandon it utterly and reverse course, so concerned was he over his “political capital”, which not only didn’t move the ball towards the goalposts but handed it over to the opposing team while destroying whatever “political capital” he may have had at the same time. I don’t think the same can honestly be said of Obama. I totally get that we may all recognize that the health care “reform” passed was not ideal nor even nearly as strong as it should have been, but the ball did get moved down the field. Guantanamo hasn’t been shut down yet, but they’re working on it. Sure we’re impatient, but the guy isn’t king; he does have to have cooperation from others to get anything done and these are huge problems he’s trying to address. I’d agree with the “Obama LIED in the campaign” contigent if I saw him simply give up on doing the things he said he’d do, but I haven’t seen him do that. And I’m enough of an adult to understand that sometimes the best someone can do is not as good as I would like it to be.

So TBogg, I’m supposed to get excited about Obama nominating “Pat,” so we can have a sideshow barking fight about homosexuality and military recruitment on campuses, in order for Obama to put someone on the Supreme Court who will be a reluctant fifth vote for government authority to torture?

My feeling about this one is let her twist in the wind. If she survives the Republican onslaught, with the handmaiden corporate media always ready to oblige, then good for her. Otherwise, Obama needed to recognize his moment and pick someone who was at least ideologically compatible with Justice Stevens, who only looks “liberal” because of the incredible rightward skew of the current Court.

I’m not upset. I’m just disappointed, as par the course with this non-Marxist, non-Muslim president (oh the pity he’s not a Marxist Muslim!).

If McSame had won (boy, that would show those lefties!) I bet he’d be nominating Cariboo Barbie to the Supremes right now, just to get her the fuck out of his hearing range.

My discomfort with the nomination of Kagan, other than the fact that Lindsey Graham thinks she’s neat, is that she was chosen by the same White House that failed to support Blanche Lincoln’s amendment to regulate derivatives and that opposed Bernie Sanders’ bill to audit the Fed. When that same crew nominates someone who is seemingly a blank slate to an already corporation-friendly court then my tendency is to think the worst.

Yes, the fuss is way overblown and now past its time, and no TBogg it’s not just a matter of having faith. Kagan is not my ideal nominee, based largely on Greenwald. Obama is not my ideal President, based entirely on Obama. (I’m way to his left.) Kagan seems like the kind of nominee Obama would make. So WTF? Obama ran as a moderate technocrat of intelligence and charm, and that’s pretty much what we’ve got. It was fine to push for a more radical &/or better documented nominee. Didn’t happen, big shock. I don’t have to have faith that Obama knows more and better about Kagan than Greenwald does in order to say, OK, let’s see how she handles the confirmation process. This is now not a choice, it’s an up or down vote, which she will probably win. And life goes on.

damn straight, Mr TBogg.

Okay dad, I’ll put my Mumia t-shirt back in the drawer…

Speaking of “faith,” recently saw this and thought it was the coolest rendition yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXeYIrfrbig

However you view the situation, principled opposition from the left in effect only strengthens Kagan’s nomination by making Republican opposition seem all the more partisan and intolerant.

I like Big Tent Democrat’s skepticism on Kagan. He stays within the lines, his criticism only makes Republicans’ look like even bigger jerks, and he points out that it sucked when Roberts and Alito non-commented their way through their hearings, and it would suck just as much if Kagan did the same.

I’m sure others are less skillful in their criticism, but no attacks from the left will hurt Kagan. The left is more powerless now than we have been in decades. Obama’s accomplishments are not lefty solutions but centrist compromises with those who never once compromised when they held the reins.

So I guess the shorter me would be: scold us when we do damage but don’t criticize us for being dissatisfied with our Sistah Souljah role in the Obama administration.

Where you’ve been?!? “We” are gonna primary Bernie Sanders since he sells “us” out all the time, not put him on the Supine Court. Then, onto to Dennis Kucinich. Hear “us” roar…RAAWWWRR!111! (burp). also.

“it was pretty clear in the campaign that he was running as a pragmatic centrist” — Huh. I seem to recall he was running as Sir-Change-a-Lot: things were going to be real different with him at the helm; things were all wrong with the country, and he was going to right them. And then… he didn’t. But, hey, so be it. If you insist he really ran to keep things largely the way they were, then I can’t help but wonder: if he’s so damn smart as all y’all keep insisting with his 10-dimensional chess moves etc. then how come it’s just us ignorant lefties who have issues w/ silly things like off-shore drilling (which your pragmatist seems to like) and indefinite detention and assassinations of Americans (which he’s pushing for) etc. etc. Or to put it this way: I don’t think you’re doing yourself a favor by listing all the areas where Obama has fallen seriously short of even a moderately pragmatic agenda of reasonable change — you’re going to build a strong argument against your own case and with it a case against his latest “find”, Kagan. She’s kinda like week-old wonderbread when the country needed some fresh, organic whole wheat. And, seriously, Tbogg, “faith?” In a politician? Sheesh.

Damn, TBogg, wtf?! See what happens when you get all reasonable and shit? I guess that’s what passes as unpleasant these days.

The Bush/Cheney regime accumulated about as much power as they could in the Executive. Who here really thinks the Obama administration’s gonna give that power up, voluntarily? What, is that a hand in the back? No, oh sorry.

Call me a dreamer, but I do have faith in Obama. The fact that his kids are about the same age as mine makes me want to believe he’ll try and leave the country in a little better shape than his predecessor. Cynics are, of course, welcome to pile on. In the meantime, I’ll keep trying to make my little corner of the world better for me and mine.

dude, WHAT is a smart sane guy like you doing on this batshit blog??

Amongst people so stupid that they decry trust in Obama, while mindlessly parroting every sensationalist bullshit smear that Hamsher or Greenwald utters?

I once told my cranky four year-old that we were going to go and see a movie called “Star Wars”.
He started crying, “That’s not one of my favorites!”

Um, the “people just disagree” thing is fine and all, but you are the one who put up a picture of your fellow liberals, who had hoped and been promised liberal appointments to the Supreme Court, as a crazed mob of disgruntled peasants.

And you can (classily) knock Greenwald all you want, but his *entire point* was that the “faith-based” argument is inadequate. Once you bring it up, you can’t just throw up your hands and say “people disagree.” It’s kind of like “Stuff happens.”

The longer the Obama Administration creeps its way along, the more I have to hand it to the wingers you so brilliantly mock here. At least they had the courage of their convictions. At least Bush and Cheney actually seemed to believe in something. At least they put their own whack jobs on the Supreme Court and everywhere else – that is, after all, why their supporters voted for them.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Obama himself has said many times, both during and since the election, that he’s no idealogue. I was pretty clear on that point so I can’t understand how anyone would have convinced themselves otherwise.

“If Barack Obama had selected her the same way John McCain plucked Sarah Palin from well-deserved obscurity I could understand people’s fears.”

McCain picked Sarah because she had nice boobies….everyone knows that.

TBogg..need more funny.

Bush and Cheney believed in the accumulation of wealth and power at any cost to enrich themselves. I would argue that their track record confirms it. Sadly, many (on the left and the right) enter government service for the same reason.

I don’t think Obama sought office solely to accumulate wealth and power, though. He’s got many faults, but that’s not one of them.

I’m not knocking Greenwald (or Jane for that matter). I think they both have excellent points. But I don’t think they or anyone else know how this will play out in the long term. On this one, I have enough respect for Obama to believe that he is knowingly putting in place a person who, to all appearances, is not a closet conservative. Like Obama, her career has been built on caution. But I believe that a lifetime appointment can be marvelously freeing.

I just think the fight against her is:

1. Tilting at windmills
2. Self-defeating
3. Wasted energy

Thank you (and TBogg, of course). Even as someone who’s really disappointed that Wood isn’t getting the nod, the amount of sound and fury signifying nothing regarding this issue is absolutely astonishing.

“I have enough respect for Obama to believe that he is knowingly putting in place a person who, to all appearances, is not a closet conservative.” If that’s really good enough for you, then you (probably) have nothing to worry about. Seems to me you’re setting the bar awfully low. So, it’s just us gullible lefty fools who had hoped to see Alito & Co. balanced out who may have reason to worry about this choice. But apparently we just need to crank op the faith a notch (clap harder!) — up until now, faith in his picks hasn’t really accomplished much (*cough* — Emanuel — *cough*)…

I was going to comment about how main FDL page posts always bring in the strident, but I can’t find it if it is. (Begun, the FDL de-TBogging has)

Look, I actually got out and campaigned for the guy, which was damn hard for a non-people person like myself. I haven’t done that since Dale Bumpers ran for Governor in the seventies. And I did that knowing full well that Barack Obama’s true middle name is “Caspar Milquetoast”, not Hussein.

Anybody that expected this guy to be a firebrand was not paying attention. His approach is to combat the hysterical (i.e. Republicans) with the reasonable. As an anti-social Socialist this often pisses me off to no end, but I know my term as President would be about 15 minutes before I was hanging by a rope in the Rose Garden.

This country has gone insane, largely due to a clever media takeover by conservatives. Going full metal DFH wouldn’t get any more coverage than the Iraq war protests did. I don’t like Barry’s way, but he has made about as much progress (yes, such as it is) as circumstances permit.

TBogg, I knew you were going to step in it this time. It’s no longer “chill the fuck out”, it’s time to “boil your catheters.”

Huh. I seem to recall he was running as Sir-Change-a-Lot: things were going to be real different with him at the helm; things were all wrong with the country, and he was going to right them.

Uh, no. He ran as a centrist, which, when compared to the shit-storm of the previous 8 years, looked like a Lefty Liberal Savior to many people, myself included.

As for change? Well, enough has changed (so far) that I’m willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt on many issues. But there are a few things on my own personal agenda (DADT, exiting Iraq, immigration…) that I am less patient about. But your milage may vary.

You are absolutely right. There is no question that this is all tilting at windmills.

Don’t I – and most liberals – know it, this far into the Obama administration.

I don’t think that sitting at my computer firing off these letters to the editor is going to change anything – but you have written a lot about Baby Tripp and Ross Douthat and Joementum and whatnot – and that’s not going to change anyone’s mind either.

As I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, I, like so many others, was devastated by what happened under Bush and Cheney. And I, like so many others, invested a great deal of hope in Obama. Because in our country it’s not like if we don’t like Labour we can go for the Lib Dems. The Democratic Party is all we’ve got. We’ve got two parties and voting for the Republicans is not an option. And Obama has been one long disappointment and the feeling of betrayal goes very deep. And yes – it does make me depressed to see someone as brilliant as yourself just throwing up your hands, saying follow-the-leadah-leadah, like Ike telling Tina it’s gonna work out fine. If people like you and Glenn Greenwald and all the other liberal writers just give up and say that none of it is worthwhile, that we shouldn’t fight for our values, that nobody cares what you think … well, you’re probably right.

But you can’t be surprised when it hits a nerve.

Pray tell me what gives you any confidence in Obama at this point?

The tilting at windmills thing is interesting. It isn’t like progressives get stronger every time they chose not to fight on an issue, we get weaker.

No Kagan isn’t the worst thing Obama has done, but I didn’t realize that I was only permitted to oppose the worst thing. It is hard to admit that one screwed up, but at some point one must if one is to remain honest with oneself.

I’d really love to spend time in the comments restating my points but I have work to do (and I’m uncharacteristically non-snarky here, so appreciate the moment) but I’m not complaining about the criticism of Kagan (or throwing up my hands like ewakowalska says). But the white hot intensity of resistance to Kagan is not proportional to the offense.

In a word, some of the criticism of Kagan and Obama has been shrill and I think undeservedly so.

Of course you’re willing to cut him some slack. What do you have to lose? You’re a white male heterosexual with a secure job and health coverage for you and your entire family (how’s that blood pressure?). You have marriage rights and protections for your family. You take many opportunities to show us the good life you lead: the books, the concerts, the pure-bred dogs you can afford to fly to PA to pick up, flying your kid in from school in Hawaii, the condo by the beach. And good for you. I’m sure you’ve earned it all the hard way. But some of us are struggling. Some of us NEED THINGS from this administration that they aren’t coming through with. Things they promised us they would handle.

You can afford to settle for a stylish president with a cool family. No need to lose sleep over anything he does or doesn’t do. Your attitude is not surprising at all. However, your seeming ignorance of the concern people have regarding Kagan on executive powers is a bit surprising. Perhaps you’re too busy finding snark material to read Greenwald and Digby these days. But I highly recommend them.

I like your blog. And no, you’re not supremely evil, but you are displaying your privilege.

TBogg
Yep, JP Stevens’s less-than-blank slate opposed affirmative action and supported the death penalty when he first caught the eye of that longtime liberal darling, Dick Nixon.
They don’t call you the best color man in the business for nothing Monty!

I just think the fight against her every Hamsher tactic is:

1. Tilting at windmills
2. Self-defeating
3. Wasted energy

Fixed.

Well, TBogg, you will have to forego that summer vacation on the Gulf of Mexico this year.

Sucks to have privilege.

OK, I’m declaring it “buy a man of privilege a present day.” Thank you for your blog, TBogg. Thanking you for trying to inject a bit of sanity into this debate. I’m assuming that many of these comments are from people who don’t regularly read your work. Since you are now a Dangerous Man, I’ve chosen that title from your Amazon wish list and it should be arriving at your mansion soon. I’ll have to check out this Charlie Huston guy.

I just don’t get the kneejerk “cult of personality” smear that comes out every time Obama says something. Some people’s knees jerk so hard they’ve got brain damage from kicking themselves in the head.

Previous life tbogg said:

Which is why the Founders, in their infinite wisdom, loaded up the Constitution and Bill of Rights with lots of qualifiers like, “more or less”, “kinda sorta”, “close enough for government work”, “whatev’ no biggie”, “if it’s cool with everyone”, “mulligan!” and “doesn’t apply to Muslims”.

You can look it up….

Then Obama’s Attorney General goes on tee vee and says we need to rethink miranda rights for citizens.

Current life tbogg sez: ‘why don’t to trust him’?

let the two tbogg’s meet.

Yeah, let the two TBogg’s meet because writing snark about the AG and then writing about the silly-ass emo-bitching from the freaks who populate teabaggerlake makes a lot of sense.

Can we just impeach him? I hear Rahm is an asshole as well, and now we’ll have to ask Grover Norquist what he thinks because, well just shut up! That’s why!

It fucking rained like a mutha yesterday, I blame Obama. We haven’t fixed every fucked up thing in this country yet, I blame Obama. My nose is running, I blame Obama. The Eagles traded McNabb to the fucking Redskins, I most definitely blame Obama (straight up Chicago style nefariousness, McNabb is a Chicago native and Obama prolly wants to nominate him as solicitor general and skip over 6,367 more qualified candidates who would immediately fix every fucking problem in the country as well as stick it to women everywhere because that’s how he rolls) and on and fucking on.

um, humboldt…. i was merely pointing out that tbogg rightly visited wrath upon peter king of ny for even considering removing miranda protections, obama’s own ag supports that two days later and now tbogg wants to know why we don’t trust obama in this arena? this is why.

No need for all the various strawmen – impeach, hasn’t fixed everything yet and all that crap.

All we are talking about is : supreme court matters. Opportunities to nominate to the scotus does not come by often, even more rarely with a dem president in charge with a near filibuster proof majority.

Dems threatened to filibuster Alito and the rethgs went nuclear option – they wanted alito so badly on the scotus.

Why not the dems? why not a clear hard core progressive who is on the record for limiting presidential rights? could it be that Obama does not agree with said limitations?

Here, let me pour some more gas on the fire:

Progressive for Kagan

C’mon, cynick. I’ve seen many of your posts and respect your opinion, but you’re better than that. Your “Two-Tbogg” post was the strawman. I cringed at Holder’s comment too, but I can’t call Obama ‘Superfailure’for every comment made by every member of the administration. My opinion, and I’m sure I’ll be roasted by many here. What Humboldt is so eloquently saying (and Hum, I think is was eloquent) is a broad stroke of what Tbogg said so succintly a few posts back.

In a word, some of the criticism of Kagan and Obama has been shrill and I think undeservedly so.

We all want a true progressive and agree on substance. It’s the useless immediate outrage and ‘with us or against us’ mindset before the facts are in that bugs the fuck out of some of us. Peace.

Yep, that pretty much nails it. Best part is “pond scum.”

I am not going to go batshit insane over the Elena Kagan nomination. Nor am I going to call for some liberal progressive pogrom against Obama. That said, I am disappointed in this pick. Not dismayed, disappointed.

Tbogg is absolutely correct to note the incredible, growing mountain of shit Obama inherited from the pretend cowboy and his corrupt, inept cabal. Presented with two ongoing wars, a devastated economy, mountainous federal debt, recalitrant idiots in the opposition party and as spineless a bunch of Congressional Democrats as I’ve seen in a long time, he has done pretty well against the odds.

Yes, I wanted a fighting liberal intellect on the court. Yes, I wanted a countweight to the power-worshipping right-wingers led by the odious Scalia. But who among readers of this blog honestly think the Democratic Congress would have stood up for a nominee like that? They’d have folded up like Newt Gingrich on a treadmill.

But here is why I’m disappointed. The Democrats are likely to take a pasting in the mid-terms. The Repuglicans who are elected are going to be even more obstreperously conservative. Their base demands it. They’ll have more numbers in the House and the Senate. Thus, any additional SCOTUS nominees are going to pass through an even narrower ideological needle.

This was the last, best shot at putting someone who stands up for progressive ideals on the court. I’m not giving up on Obama and who the hell knows what the future holds? But I think a little disappointment is allowed over this choice. Fair enough?

Look, we are all reasonable people here, basking in the glow of bassett posts and some superb snark.

Of course, some criticism of the Kagan pick has been shrill. Of course.

But the boggster also says this:

The only defense for the empty slate attack is a complete lack of faith in Obama; that he is, in fact, a Conservative Republican. And that is just nuts.

Statement 2 does not follow from statement 1. One can have a lack of faith in Obama in the matter of supreme court nominees without thinking he is a conservative republican. And even that would be nuts, if Obama himself did not produce so much evidence: he allowed his AG to make that statement. He nominated Kagan without even really floating Woods as a trial balloon – as he could so easily have done.

He has the right and he likes Kagan. We get it. Kagan is prolly not Alito. We get that too. P’raps Kagan is Souter in some bizarro reverse – she is more progressive than we expect her to be. One can hope.

But ya gotta admit – in the matter of Gitmo, personal freedoms, presidential power and yes, scotus appointments – Obama has been underwhelming. It might not matter that he compromises in health care reform or financial reform. Legislative stuff can be undone. But SCOTUS appointments are different – as GHWBush found out with Souter.

Two chances to reshape the court for the next 30 years or so, massive senate majority and he comes up with Sotomayor and Elena Kagan? We on the die-hard progressive left have a right to be disappointed.

I don’t hear anybody here say that this makes him a conservative republican – that is a strawman all of tbogg’s making.

“The only defense for the empty slate attack is a complete lack of faith in Obama; that he is, in fact, a Conservative Republican. And that is just nuts”

Seems pretty realistic to me. A corrupt corporatist slug through and through. Violator of constitutional law as well as international law much like his predecessor. Murder, torture, strip people of citizenship at a whim. Refuse to prosecute monstrous Republican lawbreakers. Put Goldman-Sachs in charge of the economy and lining their own pockets. Force Americans to buy health insurance from corporations. Yes, he’s a Republican and a conservative one at that.

1. Many of the problems go back at least to Reagan & Bush I, and Clinton didn’t solve them in 8 years. (The issue of executive power and privilege — the Imperial Presidency — goes back much further.) Bush/Cheney made them much worse, but they didn’t appear magically in 2001. Fixing them will take a while.

2. Yes, the Republicans did and do threaten to “go nuclear” etc. Obama is clearly and correctly trying to avoid that entire political approach. He’s trying to change the process. That hasn’t worked yet either. But dialing up the left rhetoric to be as mean as the right is certainly not going to.

3. The Supreme Court is important, but I think it’s more urgent, and more likely to be fruitful than venting about Kagan, to apply sustained, reasoned pressure to get Obama to admit that his Afghanistan policy has not succeeded and needs to change now, in the direction of withdrawal very soon. Maybe that’s just me.

I’m thinking the reason you don’t recognize him as a conservative Republican is because the Republicans ran off into Insanity while the Democrats ran after them taking over the former positions of the conservative Republicans.

This is by far the stalest fart ever dropped by Tbogg. I never thought I’d see such laziness from an otherwise top-notch mind. All the old standbys:

1. critics expected Perfection!
2. critics are childish!
3. critics projected onto Obama!

Sure, these hold true for a few dimwits, but not for any real lefty, like the lefties now refusing to simply be happy and shut up about Kagan. Those critics posting here today are guilty of none of these.

Because really… is America’s problem right now the fact that we just don’t acquiesce enough to middlist centrism or centrist middlism?

We have a knee-jerk centrist ideologue in office (one who quite obviously ran on a message of “hope and change” knowing full well that progressives would read that as, uh, hope and change) and quite a few of us think that such a path will a) do next to nothing to change the major structures that keep our country on the road to abject failure and b) make it even harder to try and defend and make gains for any future progressive program or candidates that our country so desperately needs. How do we stand up for progressives when our so-called standard bearer has been admitting from the outset that progressive policies and people aren’t viable?

Telling detractors to “grow up”, “be serious” etc. ain’t gonna make this reality go away. It just makes you sound far more like a New Republic wannabe than I ever, ever expected.

Um, no, I don’t think so. Violator of constitutional law? the man is a constitutional lawyer. Unles you are one yourself and can point out where – that is not a fair argument. Murder , torture? no evidence that this stuff still goes on at Gitmo. Yeah, I get it about the camp in Bagram, but that is a war zone. Goldman Sachs in charge of the economy is a bit much – Geithner isn’t a GS alum and neither is Summers – they are corporate slugs of their own making. Just because Summers took bribes from Wall Street does not make him GS scum – he is just scum.

I can understand why Obama went with Geihner, Summers and Rubin – he was inheriting a crapshoot that was threatening to bring the world down and he needed to communicate continuity. I don’t agree with it, but that hardly makes Obama a republican.

But ya gotta admit – in the matter of Gitmo, personal freedoms, presidential power and yes, scotus appointments – Obama has been underwhelming. It might not matter that he compromises in health care reform or financial reform. Legislative stuff can be undone. But SCOTUS appointments are different – as GHWBush found out with Souter.

Well, actually, I’m not going to admit that. IMHO, while I am certainly not completely enamored, I would say underwhelmed is way too strong a word. I believe progress has been made. And I know many here disagree, and that’s fine. As far as your Souter comparison, I agree. But isn’t that why we should wait to see what the woman has to say for herself before we turn her into Tokyo Rose? Criticism is fine, but the methods that some have used is a big turnoff to a lot of strong progressives like myself. And as far as the Tbogg strawman, just take a look at the next post after yours. Again, peace brother (sister).

Tbog
If you’re going to loose the dogs (bassets?) of verbal war, how about crying Havoc! first so we know what to expect.

I’m a big admirer of Hillary Clinton, but does anyone really think that, had she been elected President, she’d have governed as a lefty liberal?

Or that she’d have nominated TWO women to the Supremes?

Thanks TBogg.

It’s fine to criticize Obama, I don’t have a problem with that and frankly neither does he. The problem I see is the “there’s no difference between Obama and Bush” crowd. Is that really true? You really think we’d be in the same place with Grampy as Prez? If so, that makes you an idiot.

As far as Kagan’s judicial experience goes, she’d have a helluva lot more if it hasn’t been for Republican obstructionism. just sayin’, but maybe we should focus on that.

Our opposition is batshit insane. Eventually, they’re going to wither and die, but they haven’t yet as far as I can see, so you can expect to see nominations like this.

I’m fine with this pick. I hope she is confirmed quickly. Obama will have at least one more nomination to make during his first term, hopefully after the fights for immigration and financial reform are past us.

Isn’t there that little thing about the president’s right to murder an American citizen anywhere (after of course a though review) if necessary? Isn’t that what the con. law prof. prez. thought up here recently?

I’m absolutely sure that not only would Hillary Clinton been even more progessiver, but that Sayrah Palin would have been the ultimate in progressive! Unfortunately it would have been of the old-line Jebus-thumping racist WR progressivism like George Wallace, but still; labels, you know…

The old saying is that no one forms a circular firing squad faster than Democrats, but I think we can update that now to Liberal Democrats and POP’s (Pissed Off Progressives). I call myself a Progresive and I’ve always been a political junkie but quite frankly, at this point the constant outrage O’ the day has sapped my level of interest and involvement. Yes, I will still go out and vote every single time: yes, I will donate and volunteer to get Colorado’s best bet of a progessive-ish Senator re-elected (Michael Bennet). However, after having every political event I have attended in the past 3 year include some raving firebagger type who has nothing to offer other than incensed, loud criticism that the rest of the group was fucking sick of hearing, I’m done with that aspect of citizen involvement. If that was always the point of both the firebaggers and the Grover Norquist types, then bravo, you did a damned fine job of disgusting enough not-so-flaming types that they don’t want to bother with the sandbox anymore if being an involved citizen means always dealing with these types pissing in it.

It’s not Elena Kagan. It’s that this is on top of the kind of crappy health care bill. The kind of crappy financial reform bill. The bonuses. The Gitmo deal. The continuing of Bush policies. Offshore drilling. Nuclear Power plants. The exceptions to Miranda now apparently being endorsed by Obama by way of Axelrod. The cabinet which is almost all centrist appointees. I am shocked, just shocked, that Interior under Ken Salazar didn’t give a crap about offshore drilling rules and regs. He still hasn’t got rid of Bush era USAG’s. He caves when it comes to defending liberal nominees but goes out of his way for Bernanke. No, it’s not Elena Kagan. It’s that he’s too much of a pussy to fight for Diane Wood. Furthermore, this is when he has 59 votes. So who’s he going to nominate when he has 55 votes? Alberto Gonzales? Obama is compromising with Jeffrey Dahmer that he’ll let him cut off the leg if he(Obama) can the rest of his body.

I can’t imagine why you expected any better from these folks. Unless maybe you’ve been on vacation since like Super Tuesday or something.

Obama said, while campaigning, that he’d bring our troops home from Iraq in 90 days. He never told us the huge consolidation of power in the executive branch would be something he would promote. He has dragged his feet on DADT, when as commander in chief he could have said “we’re at war so I’m suspending it” while he worked on getting congress to kill it.

So after all this I do NOT give him the benefit of the doubt on Kagan. HOWEVER, I do understand that we have a bunch of conservative/corporate owned Dems in the Senate so it might not have been possible for him to get a true progressive like Wood approved for the Supreme Court.

Our Chinese Overlords (and hedge fund managers) are enjoying this Kagan-distraction….

And Tbogg, I second your “chill the fuck out”, unless a Supreme Court nominee can reverse TheGreatShipClimateChange….

If not, hopefully there’s a ChineseSpacePod for everyone because everyone is going to need one well before the next time Douthat has sex again….

I’ll vote. I always do. But my donations will be significantly lower.

Midterms generally turn on getting out the base. That requires enthusiasm. Obama isn’t doing anything to get anyone on the progressive side very excited. Seriously, what would FDR do in this position?

I know it’s better than a GOP whacknut any day, but it’s the same old triangulating, DLC bullshit that we got from Clinton.

Not to join in the crappening upon of Obama/Kagan or nothing, but here’s my 2 cents Murkin:

A) Obama’s a centrist who believes in compromise over bluster;

2) Obama is also up against a raging shit inferno of right wing paranoia and fear, fanned by a GOP who wants to see him fail at the expense of their own country and its citizens (and at the handsome profit of their corporate masters), and spoonfed by a corporate media who cares more about promoting fake outrage than providing reliable information.

D) Punching hippies always seems to be in style, as some weird defense that it shows that you are somehow more sensible. If you insult and ignore your base, it shows that you are centrist and compromising and stuff. (Yet the GOP goes out of its way to flatter its base, even though they too have no intention of fulfilling their wildest wet dreams – though the Virginia Taliban is trying its best.)

So it goes like this: Obama nominates Democratic insider. GOP predictably shits its pants because she’s slightly to the left of Joe McCarthy. But dullards in media notice the “angry Left” is pissed too, so she must not be the CommieMuslimMarxistHippieNazi that the usual buffoons piss and moan about. Obama gets his nominee passed, media discovers something else to distract them, and we’re told to vote for Democrats because where else ya gonna go? Then they’re shocked – just SHOCKED! – that the base didn’t turn out in November. (Lousy dirty hippies and their wanton desires. When will they stop thinking for themselves?) Them Obama will be told he needs to compromise even more before he gets to the bargaining table.

You would think that when the GOP couldn’t keep up their pitiful bluff after the Democrats in the Senate called them on their filibuster threat, a light would go off in their heads that America admires – and rewards – true leaders with guts. But I guess having personal courage doesn’t pay the reelection bills, and high-priced DC prostitutes will listen to anyone’s bullshit war story for a price.

So we need to keep Obama’s as well as fellow Dems’ collective feet to the fire, and keep reminding them that all the corporate donations in the world won’t get them elected unless they do something to entice the voters to switch off the TV, get up off their asses, and go down to their local polling place – even if it’s RAINING? ah, crap! – to vote for them because they really ARE the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, they’ll have to go out and get jobs. Sure, lobbying their old friends pays great but it don’t get you good headlines back home. Or worse – you have to go back home. And if that means we have to appear shrill sometimes with our bitching about civil rights and prosecuting war criminals, so be it. Teabaggers are the shrillest of the unintelligensia, yet they are fawned upon even though they are the dullest tools in the box. Fuck ‘em – they’re fun to laugh at. Unless they are reminded that it is OUR asses that eventually need to be kissed, we can always expect more of the same centrist triangulation and brazillion-dimensional chess.

Oh, and TBogg is like Satan times Che Guevara with just a pinch of Stalin. On account of he’s one o’them somewhat popular bloggers. Also. But his puppehs, wife and daughter are OK, so we promise not to steal their sodas during the Revolution.

Man, writin’ essays is hard. Good thing someone else does the hard work of blogging and stuff, so I don’t have to! Too.

Right on, TBogg. I think this is a brilliant choice.

She’ll run rings around Scalia & that’s what we need.

Is Inquisitr really BTD in disguise?

Sounds like him. Same sense of galloping victimization. Same propensity for misplaced absolutism. Same lack of real world perspective.

Ditto.

If all you’re doing is shouting, people will tune you out. That’s not meant to be insulting, that’s just the nature of things.

Our Chinese Overlords….

These Chinese Overlords?

Obama’s saying stupid/scary Bush-like things lately (like wanting to fiddle with Miranda rights) so I think it’s fair to let him know when he’s full of shit (as he is or was, for example, about offshore drilling). I have no idea if he’s full of shit re this candidate, but if Republicans hate her she’s probably not all bad. But then they hate for the sake of hating so who the hell knows anymore.

OK, once you hit 100 comments on this I am going to start laughing out loud. If it hits 200 I will definitely be rolling around on the floor, county hazmat warnings be damned.

Obama has consistently lied to and disappointed the left.

Jeebus.

Is it actually possible that you are really that fucking stupid? Obama’s record prior to running for president was solidly, unambiguously centrist. He ran as a fucking centrist. He gave centrist speeches. His campaign put out centrist policy documents, and was led by centrists.

Now you’re all fucking betrayed that Obama has governed as a centrist? What the fuck kind of fucking fantasist thinks that Obama was some kind of ultraliberal wank-fantasy?

I fucking hate idots who can’t read, or listen, or understand, but instead can only project. You fucking imbecile.

There. Now I feel slightly better.

“So, have a little faith. This is not the end of the world.”

Actually, TBogg, it is the end of the world as we have known it. Obama will be given a footnote for attempting to perpetuate economic growth by propping up the dinosaurs of finance which necessitates impoverishing the nation -and only postpones the collapse of finance. Peak oil and other limits to growth are immutable forces.

You’re much better with Republicans in office.

Reread what again. Mr TBogg didn’t actually say anything in this post. Faith ain’t a gonna get it, man. Especially faith in someone as Lucy like as Obama has been. F’k that.

I’m really sick of this “he ran as a centrist” bullshit, too. He ran on many specific platform planks, and in many cases he isn’t living up to them. These middle-of-the-road Supremes being nominated (on the theory that he won’t get a fight, that he’s going to get anyway), don’t match what he said in the campaign, and since he’s going to have to fight the fight anyway, he might as well have it to get something worth the fight.

One of the things that hit me as I was reading over the comments here is how angry the people who are defending Obama are. There really does seem to be some hate out there for people who dare to criticize Obama and his not particularly progressive choices. Kind of interesting.

TBogg, I’m begging, pleading, I’m on my knees.

Boobies and bassets, please.

Great post TBogg. I am a proud liberal. But, man I tire of the hand-wringers. Tough to come down on the conservatives for purity tests, when one sees this type of reaction to a nominee I will bet most of the hand-wringing crew know nothing about…who seem to base their rush to judgment based on “something” they read or heard. I agree, chill the fuck out.

fersure, it’s not the people pissing and moaning about Obama who are angry. nah.

While President Obama is a centrist, he changed his rhetoric at the end of the campaign. When McLame picked The Grifter, the ReThugs got a bounce & were actually ahead of the Democratic ticket. The present president then changed course & began an economic populist tack. He promised a bottom up recovery, one that would bring back, at least somewhat, the middle-class. He started talking tough about the banks, etc. Guess what? He pulled ahead & won the presidency. I’m at the 4th St. stage- I have no faith to lose, & I know it. This was a dumbass post, Tbogg & I never thought I would say this but, I’m with the above – Bassets & Boobs (male & female) – don’t criticize the DFHs, we’ve been pretty much correct about a lot things. Plus, you’ve already got a job.

tired and angry about Obama, I’ve yet to see a person who is critical of Obama complain about the length of a blog post, something I see regularly when people talk about Greenwald.

I am not a lawyer but I read many of them that blog and try to understand the situation so that I don’t make snap decisions and regret it later.

I’ll just paste a comment from Mary, a most excellent lawyer. Usually she’s in EW’s threads.

think anyone who actually reads Greenwald or listens to this piece will come out with a fair list of overt acts on which he is basing concern.

I’ll add in reading her Citizen’s United oral argument transcript for an awful job done.[or see Rachels show from 2 days ago- the same day she has Greedwald on] Then to sink you[r] stomach, read her oral argument in the islamic charities case where she argues to an incredulous bench that lawyers who file briefs in support of accused charities are providing illegal (felonious)material support.

Greenwald also pulls out the points on her worldview of the world as a global battlefield. This is not only disturbing, but is also DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO LAW, as set forth in Ex Parte Milligan, where the Sup Ct quite clearly spells out that where society is functioning to the point of open and operating courtrooms, you don’t have a battlefield situation. Here she was, up for Sol Gen, with the kinds of cases that have been prominent (Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, Boumediene, etc.) and this very prominent, very basic point is one that she completely gets “wrong” (just as Graham does repeated). IOW, she lays the foundation that she will be an activist for Exec Power and the right to declare battlefied powers even where courts are open and operating – to unilaterally shut down the courts by power of office rather than by circumstance of war.

Pretty damn bad. Worse – no one called her on it. It’s black letter law, reaffirmed in Hamdi by SCALIA of all justicies fergoshsakes, and she got it totally wrong and was praised for it – and she’ll take that worldview to the court. bad bad bad bad bad news. She’ll take it with the predisposition to also view lawyers that argue against it as committing “material support” for “terrorism” and being subject to being jailed for filing pleadings.

Sheez – if Bush had offered up someone with that record, fireworks would have ensued. To see Democrats lap it up is revolting. Just flat out repellant.

Did you get that? Does that scare anyone? Do you think we should keep the gulag system going on? Do you have any empathy for the innocent people we’ve locked up for 9 years who we now can’t or wont let go because we’ve tortured them?
And there is this post by bmaz..

And here is Jonathan Turley.

This is a decision that is going to keep giving it’s gifts for 30 years, oh and think of the precedents she’ll set. Can we afford it? Supreme Ct. Nominations are the only thread that will keep a good portion of demoralized people on the left in Obama’s camp. Kagan will make him a one term president.

I am a lawyer, and I think Greenwald, bmaz and Mary are full of shit.

As an attorney I have read a number of essays and opinions written by lawyers that I think are shit. However, that line of reasoning does not seem to sway the appeals court.

And Turley? Can you address some specific points against their arguments so that the unwashed, such as myself and my brethren depicted in the picture above have some real meat with which to weigh against theirs, beyond the ad hominems?

Turley’s main problem seems to be the Harvard/Yale monopoly on the Court.

I agree with his conclusions, but note in passing that the American people have elected Presidents from this same pool in the past two Presidential elections (W: BA, Yale; MBA, Harvard Business school. O: JD, Harvard Law)

I read that comment four times, just to make sure that it didn’t change.

Am I reading it the way it was meant?
Disliking the length of a post indicates anger

She’s one of the crowd, which leads to group think and anti-intellectualism. We have this incestuous problem with the fed, treasury and Goldman Sachs.
From my earlier Turley link

Elitism on the court is open and raw.

Nominations like Kagan’s are the result of a network of graduates who work consciously or unconsciously to see that their own are nominated. Notably, after Kagan’s nomination, powerful figures from her Harvard years came forward to vouch for her abilities. Their message was the same: Despite her lack of a record, she is known in our circle as a real winner. She is, in a phrase, one of us. Indeed, reporters breathlessly reported how Kagan and Scalia are good friends and how she knows many of the main players from Harvard, as if it is the judicial equivalent to having graduated from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

The favoritism shown Harvard and Yale should be viewed not just as incestuous but as scandalous. It undermines educational institutions across the country by maintaining a clearly arbitrary and capricious basis for selection. It also runs against the grain of a nation based on meritocracy and opportunity.

A faith based intitiative of our own, isn’t that what the Obama defenders are arguing for?
White smoke, black smoke method… Even Kagan agrees:

The sad fact is that there is more demonstrated ability and evaluation in American Idol than these Senate hearings [...]

As Kagan once said, “When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce.”

In Kagan’s case, she appeared to endorse controversial views from the Bush administration in limiting civil liberties in the war on terror — views diametrically opposed to some of the most important decisions of the man she hopes to replace, Justice John Paul Stevens.

We were once able to put the likes of Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Joseph Story on the court. We now have a process that favors hope over experience with the advantage going to those nominees with the least writing and slimmest record.

I’ve had just about all the unrequited hope I can stand. What kind of whine goes best with vacuity and farce? Next up: WH does away with Journalists for Kagans first interview as a nominee.

How is he moving the court to the right?

President Barack Obama said he wanted to honor the legacy of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens with his nominee. If so, he has chosen to honor it in the breach with a nominee who is likely to dismantle a significant part of Stevens’ legacy. As with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has decided to nominate someone who is demonstrably more conservative than the person she is replacing on some issues –potentially moving the Court to the right. I discussed on the nomination on this segment of Countdown.

As for you that believe we should have known he was a centrist and he never promised us a progressive pony..

For many liberals and civil libertarians, the Kagan nomination is a terrible act of betrayal after the President campaigned so heavily on the issue of the Supreme Court during his campaign. He is now replacing a liberal icon with someone who has testified that she does not believe in core protections for accused individuals in the war on terror. During her confirmation hearing Kagan testified that she believed that anyone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be stripped of protections and held under indefinite detention without a trial — agreeing with the Bush Administration.
[...]
Her writings on hate speech indicate a willingness to compromise on free speech issues. This is a similar view as expressed and criticized with Justice Sotomayor. Kagan’s 1996 article “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine” in the University of Chicago Law Review should make any free speech advocate feel uncomfortable.

Turley agrees vindicates Mary.

To summize..

[S]he is not considered an intellectual leader in the teaching academy. She has actually written comparatively little as an academic. She has written only a few significant law review articles and a collection of shorter pieces. She appears to have received tenure at the University of Chicago based on a single article — something that would not be permitted at most top schools. What writing is there is not welcome by civil libertarians, which shows a lack of commitment to the very “fundamental rights” that President Obama referenced this morning in his nominating speech [..]

Turley really thinks that Holmes was a good Supreme Court Justice?

Are you saying he wasn’t? What is your rational?

Been a long time, shek, but I remember him as a better legal historian and writer than Justice.

Look up Buck v. Bell

So do I, and I’ve read everything and am exhausted. I just have graduate degrees and try to think through everything, sort of.

I was going to comment about how main FDL page posts always bring in the strident, but I can’t find it if it is. (Begun, the FDL de-TBogging has)

Wait. You mean this thread wasn’t on the front page?

What points are you making about him in that case?

I’d like to see some of these smart, supposed members of the “reality based” crowd, especially the lawyers make some intelligent arguments for the side they are taking, if you’re not too tired after all that readin’ ..

“Full of shit” or Jane is like Greenwald, and through the transitive properties of personal dislikes, he’s disqualified.
If that’s the best you’ve got? What did you really spend your tuition money on?

“Full of shit” or Jane is like Greenwald, and through the transitive properties of personal dislikes, he’s disqualified.
If that’s the best you’ve got? What did you really spend your tuition money on?

1) I think that you’re damning me for something somebody else said, shek.

2) read the opinion

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0274_0200_ZO.html

think about how a finding that the state has an interest sufficient to COMPEL sterilization squares with your notions of individual liberty, right to privacy, etc.

3) I didn’t have to pay tuition, being a little smartass, and spent the money on dope and stuff instead, but of course.

Well said. Best comment of the first five dozen or so.

Yeah, great comment.

After we finish eating the rich, we’ll snack on the Snarkist Privileged Class that refuses to understand that we voted in the socialist revolution when the country elected Obama and instead thinks that what we’re getting is tiny steps back from where we were.

The 59-vote myth? Really? Agree with all your points and complaints, but Tbogg is right. The criticism of the guy who brought some kind of healthcare out of the abyss, the guy who’s been pressing hard for financial reforms of some sort (where are those fucking 59 votes, huh?), who’s been pressing for a revamped energy policy of some sort, who’s at least trying to pull out every motherfucking landmine Bush embedded in the government before he left doesn’t deserve the kind of bitter, blanket disgust he’s been getting. Bravo to Tbogg for pointing it out.

when did Obama ever specify the type of Supreme Court justice he would nominate? This is exactly the kind of comment the Tbogg is talking about (I assume): assumptions about what Obama would do based on personal wishes or aspirations.

My problem with Obama these days is best stated with a boxing analogy: pre-fight he talked about going out and aggressively taking on his opponent, now he stands in his corner, constantly trying to shake hands. Give it up, punch the idiot.